[delta_echo]

“Those who would sacrifice a little freedom for temporal safety deserve neither to be safe or free.â€￾
- Benjamin Franklin

[Harley]

"The British are coming!  The British are coming!"
- Paul Revere

[leadmagnet]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jeff_White</i>
<br />Gentlemen,
May I suggest that you both READ the actual statues? Neepster may I further suggest that you pay particular attention to section 215 (2) (B) (1). That is the section that deals with the judicial oversight that is required for such orders to served.
In addition, contrary to what the websites that you posted say, "sneak and peak" search warrants are not new and were not "created" by the Patriot Act. For example how do you suppose wiretaps or transponders are installed? They require (as they always have) a court order from a judge.
I guess that we have turned into a "Chris Carter" conspiracy theory society that it is easy to believe that the federal government is salivating at the chance to turn our country into a fascist state. It is simply trying to protect its citizens from a new kind of mass murderer; one that operates in the shadows and that requires new ways of being dealt with.
As always, best regards

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Come on, Jeff.  Yes I've read the "Patriot" Act.  All 132 pages.  You might want to read it too.  Whatever you may think of the ACLU website, they do have a downloadable copy in pdf.

http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=12250

Your understanding as to what is now required in order to obtain private information and records is woefully lacking.

One of the most significant provisions of the Patriot Act is that it makes it far easier for the authorities to gain access to records of citizen's activities being held by a third party. At a time when computerization is leading to the creation of more and more such records, Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to force anyone at all - including doctors, libraries, bookstores, universities, and Internet service providers - to turn over records on their clients or customers.

The result is unchecked government power to rifle through individuals' financial records, medical histories, Internet usage, bookstore purchases, library usage, travel patterns, or any other activity that leaves a record. Making matters worse:

•The government no longer has to show evidence that the subjects of search orders are an "agent of a foreign power," a requirement that previously protected Americans against abuse of this authority.

•The FBI does not even have to show a reasonable suspicion that the records are related to criminal activity, much less the requirement for "probable cause" that is listed in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. All the government needs to do is make the broad assertion that the request is related to an ongoing terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation.

•Judicial oversight of these new powers is essentially non-existent. The government must only certify to a judge - with no need for evidence or proof - that such a search meets the statute's broad criteria, and the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application.

•Surveillance orders can be based in part on a person's First Amendment activities, such as the books they read, the Web sites they visit, or a letter to the editor they have written.  

•A person or organization forced to turn over records is prohibited from disclosing the search to anyone. As a result of this gag order, the subjects of surveillance never even find out that their personal records have been examined by the government. That undercuts an important check and balance on this power: the ability of individuals to challenge illegitimate searches

Please do a little homework before you come back into the forums to tell us how little things have changed in the area of search and seizure subsequent to the passing of the "Patriot" Act, Jeff.  

What has been pointed out here so far in this thread only scratches the surface.

Lead

*edit- Oh, and thanks for the compliment, Harley.

[Harley]

I'm glad some of you are more articulate in your writing than I am.

Noted Lead.  God did I complement you?!  []

[shoule02]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jeff_White</i>
<br />Gentlemen,
May I suggest that you both READ the actual statues? Neepster may I further suggest that you pay particular attention to section 215 (2) (B) (1). That is the section that deals with the judicial oversight that is required for such orders to served.
In addition, contrary to what the websites that you posted say, "sneak and peak" search warrants are not new and were not "created" by the Patriot Act. For example how do you suppose wiretaps or transponders are installed? They require (as they always have) a court order from a judge.
I guess that we have turned into a "Chris Carter" conspiracy theory society that it is easy to believe that the federal government is salivating at the chance to turn our country into a fascist state. It is simply trying to protect its citizens from a new kind of mass murderer; one that operates in the shadows and that requires new ways of being dealt with.
As always, best regards

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

While I do agree with you that the Patriot Act was passed with the good intentions of further enabling LEO's to apprehend terrorists and prevent terrorist acts, I can not understand why these terrorists should be an exception to the rules that LEO's would normally follow in apprehending common criminals who are not terrorists.  If there is <b>not</b> sufficient evidence to monitor, search, arrest, or prosecute these terrorists <b>without</b> the Patriot Act being applied, then how do we have sufficient evidence to set aside the constitution and violate their rights (by using the Patriot Act)?

[Jeff_White]

Hello again,
Lead perhaps you should take another look at the statute, I believe that you will find it to be 347 pages. In one of my first posts I placed was url link to it in its entirety.
In addition through out the text it is expressly stated that "provided that such investigation of a united states person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the constitution."
"Please do a little homework before you come back into the forums to tell us how little things have changed in the area of search and seizure subsequent to the passing of the "Patriot" Act, Jeff. "
Well... I have been conducting searches and seizure for the better part of five years. I assure you I fully understand the $th amendment and I have read the Patriot Act. I would like to think that that would be plenty of homework. I challenge you to find in the text of the law, any part that suspends or nullifies ANY part or amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
It is pretty clear to me that opinions have been cemented on this topic. I think I am going to leave it alone from here on out. Allow me to finish with whether I agree with y'all or not, I agree with disagreement. The purpose of democracy is for folks to do away with laws they disagree with. I just hope that when the dust settles over the Patriot Act we have not weakened our ability to defend ourselves.
Best wishes to all,

[Neepster]

Well Jeff, I don't want to denigrate your work in this area, but a NY judge, one who supposedly knows the law even better than you certainly believes that the POS PATRIOT act DOES violate the US Constitution.

I personally find it hard to understand how a law that limits the speech of an uninterested 3rd party like a librarian would be constitutional, but then again, the government of the US finds ways of ignoring the Constitution at every turn... basically every time there is a "compelling government interest".  Our forefathers are rolling over in their graves.

I guess we will find out for sure whether this is or is not unconstitutional when SCOTUS weighs in on the subject.  

Incidentally, what is your opinion of this president's belief that he can name US citizens "enemy combatants" and throw them in jail forever?  Think THAT one is Constitutional?

[gixser13]

John Ashcroft Says U.S. Justice Department Likely to Appeal Patriot Act Court Ruling  
 
From left: EU Justice CommissionerAntonio Vitorino, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and Dutch Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner during the Informal JHA Council in Scheveningen, the Netherlands, Thursday, Sept. 30, 2004. Ashcroft and EU justice ministers agreed to improve the trans-Atlantic flow of intelligence information to help track down terrorists and prevent attacks. (AP Photo/Bas Czerwinski).
09-30-2004 6:13 AM

SCHEVENINGEN, Netherlands --  The U.S. Justice Department will probably appeal a New York district court ruling that the Patriot Act violates the U.S. constitution, Attorney General John Ashcroft said Thursday.

Ashcroft said he would study it upon his return to Washington but "it's almost a certainty it will be appealed."

"We believe the act to be completely consistent with the United States constitution," he told reporters at talks with European Union officials.

On Wednesday, a district judge struck down a USA Patriot Act provision allowing the FBI to gather phone and Web customer records and then barring the service providers from ever disclosing the search took place.

The decision is the second time a judge has ruled unconstitutional part of the Patriot Act, a package of prosecution and surveillance tools passed shortly after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

"There are hundreds of district court judges, and one of them has indicated that some parts of the Patriot Act, in accordance with his view, does not meet constitutional standards," he said. "We will continue in the United States to use every tool we have in the Constitution to fight terrorism."

Judge Victor Marrero said the law violated the Fourth Amendment because it barred or deterred any judicial challenge to government searches, and it violated the First Amendment because its permanent ban on disclosure was a prior restraint on speech.

He noted that the U.S. Supreme Court recently said that a "state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."

"Sometimes a right, once extinguished, may be gone for good," Marrero wrote.

President Bush has been pushing Congress to renew the Patriot Act before it expires next year, arguing that it is one of law enforcement's best tools in preventing another catastrophic terrorist attack
 
BECAREFULL WHAT YOU POST THEY ARE WATCHING......